XM8 VS. M16/M4 and 5.56 VS. 6.8SPC what's next...?

the point is, if i were trying to develop a weapon for today's military, i would at least give a dozen or so to the marines, to see how quickly they broke it.

there is a plain and simple fact that my best friend trained me on:
the marines are a ground taking force
the army is a ground keeping force
 
The reason they may be shortining the barrels is because the ranges that we are fighting are getting closer. No reason to have longer barrels when most of your gunfights are CQB or withhin 100 meters.Yes, I think they should have gone with the 6.8,but hey, they didn't. With the xm-8 if the battles start getting longer in distance at anytime, they can easily swap out barrels, unlike with the m4.
 
point.

counter point:
the xm8 is supposed to be lighter than the m4/m16 right? so why wiegh the soldier down by making him carry another barrel?

and besides, so what if you have a 20" barrel in a 100m combat situation, that could turn into a 300m combat situation. that just means the bullet hits them that much harder.

and then you run into the time it takes to change out the barrel... in a combat situation.....
 
I didn't mean for soilders to carry 3 or 4 different barrels. If later on you needed to change it out if, lets say we pulled out of Iraq and invaded some other country where the battles where taking place at longer distances. You could change the barrel to adjust to mission specifics. Yes I agree we should have kept the 7.62 Nato. What happens if that 300m battle turns into a 600 meter battle and so fourth. The situations are endless. But if it were me, I would call artie on thier positions and let the king of battle take care of it.
 
SCAR 6.8mm

FN is running fullpage ads bragging on the triumph of their SCAR which is for SpecOps :p and soon available in 6.8mm (I hear). Where do I sign? :D

The M-8 when it arrives will be 5.56mm but launching heavier (77+gr), more frangible bullets. :cool:
 
Personally this is what i would do if i were in charge:
demand a refund on the 9 billion dollars we've spent on the xm8 so far, replace all the 14" barrels with 20" barrels, and go to a heavier grained, frangible ammunition.

i'm not going to comment on the scar, cause i don't know jack about it. looks tight though. i'll buy one if they ever civy it up for us.
 
Yes I agree we should have kept the 7.62 Nato. What happens if that 300m battle turns into a 600 meter battle and so fourth. The situations are endless. But if it were me, I would call artie on thier positions and let the king of battle take care of it.
Click to expand...

Artillery or air strikes is always the preferred choice if available. Khafji did not afford either of that available to our Marines. They still did a fine job and no I don't think a change to 7.62 would have had any dramatic effect. I was thinking more in terms of penetrating fire as in being able to shoot through cover as well as the improved stopping power as afforded by the 7.62N. Not to mention its an already established round without the need for any extra hoopla by necking down a .270. Although the ballistics from a 6.8mm do look promising.

Jailbait here is a link to the FN SCAR, and all other guns of goodness

As for the Army Marines deal, from what I've seen first hand the avg Marine takes care of their rifle likes its their son or daughter. Note not intended to be a slight against the Army guys at all. The Army guys are much rougher on their equipment being more numerous and more widely available. Just my personal observation.
 
Speaking of tired cliches:
"there is a plain and simple fact that my best friend trained me on:
the marines are a ground taking force
the army is a ground keeping force"

Wish the Army had been available to liberate Europe in WWl and WWll, Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to all you Marines for all you've done! :)
 
Wish the Army had been available to liberate Europe in WWl and WWll, Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to all you Marines for all you've done!
Click to expand...

From the Halls of the Reichstag....to the shores of Anzio........They will fight our countries battles... ;)
 
Well it's a good thing your not in charge. Everyone hates new rifles. In another 40 years when the next rifle is gonna come out, people will be bitching about how the M-8 was bad ass and this new fangled rifle looks like a toy. It happend from M1 to m-14 and from m-14 to m-16. I guess it's just the way things are.
 
never said I wanted to be, just what I prefer. And if I was in charge I'd have everyone line up in Legions and storm the enemy with short swords, and God forbid should we fail or members falter, the call for decimation would go out.........
 
Last edited:
My fix

Replace all M16A2s with M16A4s. Give everyone some type of optical advantage (ACOG, EOTech, etc.). Only give M4s to those who have a tactical necessity for a short barrel (building clearing teams, etc.). Too many people want the ballistically-inferior M4 just because "it's not in the way as much". Since the M4 folks left have a ballistically-inferior rifle, give them those blended metal bullets that shred the insides of people they hit. Upgrade the M855/M856 combo to the Mk 262 Mod 1 and a ballistically-matched tracer. Cheap fix, but pretty effective.
 
hehehehe,

No matter how much "Little Jeffie" Cooper and the other 19th century dinos rant, the .45-70 aint comin' back! And neither is the .30-40 Krag, the .30-06, the .308, or any other long, heavy "pumpkin rollers." They're obsolete in todays military.

The .45 ACP isn't coming back either. (But PLEASE, don't tell Jeffie! It would break his heart!) :D
 
CrossHair- I have nothing against the SAW as weapons platform. The problem with it, as a system, is that almost all of them are WAY past their useful service life. For the record I have carried, ran, fired, and marched (humped for all you Leathernecks out there) with one while serving as an 0311 in the Marines. If you had one that worked well life was great, otherwise you spent most of your time clearing a jam due to worn components as opposed to firing and manuevering.

As a side note, it's primarily finding a new Squad Automatic Weapon the Army seems to be interested in. It has pretty much been said that if budgetary constraints only allow ONE system to be replaced, it will be the M-249. It is also the weapon that has to have the least amount of compatible parts with the other proposed designs and therefore allows the greatest amount of leeway with the overall design.

I have utmost respect for anyone choosing to serve our country, no matter what service. However, there are some truths about the Marine Corps. They do more for less, in fact the ENTIRE Marine Corps is roughly about 10% of the Navy's entire budget. Marine training and overall mentality is significantly more Warrior oriented. What I mean by this is that every Marine is trained as a rifleman first and some other MOS secondly. And finally, there is a reason the Marines are called upon (as an entire service) to do the dirtiest jobs. If all the Marines had were sharp sticks they'd still assault the beach and kill the enemy with them :)

Semper Fi,
Mike F.
 
"hehehehe,

No matter how much "Little Jeffie" Cooper and the other 19th century dinos rant, the .45-70 aint comin' back! And neither is the .30-40 Krag, the .30-06, the .308, or any other long, heavy "pumpkin rollers." They're obsolete in todays military.

The .45 ACP isn't coming back either. (But PLEASE, don't tell Jeffie! It would break his heart!)"

what the hell? .30-06 and .308 "19th century dinos?" those are two great rounds, neither of which are dead. the .308 is actually making a come back. armalite, remington and a few others (all foriegn) are trying to make more variations......
 
and not to mention the .308 (current in service M240's & M14's) has never left nor is it from the 19th century, but to each their own. You know its funny that Bushmaster and DPMS both this past year have started producing 7.62x51 chambered rifles.
 
Don't you think you're more combat effective with 280 rounds of 5.56 as opposed to 100-120 rounds of 7.62? I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.

Fact: With in fragmentation range, the 5.56mm bullet causes MORE extensive tissue damage than the 7.62 / .308.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top